delete

[videoeditor1]

[quote]Originally posted by popmusic: [b]Just wondering.[/b][/quote] Neh-vher. NYC Drew

[Hippie]

I'm always a little saddened when I really love a CD and then read the critics bash the hell out of it. It makes me wonder if they know something I don't. But in the end if I like it, I figure the critics are wrong. ;) -as far as movies, I usually always agree with the critics choices. I don't go to many movies.

[strat0124]

nope...not when commercial dj's don't control playlists....theres only like five major companies that control all commercial radio in this country. College radio and NPR are the only holdouts. I'll take taste over focus groups anyday.

[tnb]

NEVER! The same goes for movies, basses, bands, restaurants,etc. Critics, f*ck 'em!

[strat0124]

Yeah I read em...but take em with a grain of salt....... Actually it means more to me when I hear of one my heroes commenting on a new artist or CD....or gear.....or whatever. But again...a grain of salt.

[MusicWorkz]

Nope, not at all. I take everything they say with a grain of salt.

[natty fred]

critics don't influence my choice of what I buy but I may be tempted to find an mp3 on the net if I just want to check out the vibe, depending on what sort of records i'm shopping for on a particular day if it's dance music then I like to go record shopping with various djs/producers/gal pals and we pick out piles of stuff for each other to check out, with jazz I usually go for stuff by people I know of, or as Strat put it someone "one of my heros mignt mention", I don't think I have ever changed my view of a record because I've read a negative review, but sometimes I will put on an old cd and wonder what on earth I used to really dig about it?? peace natty

[Lee Flier]

The kind of review that might influence my choice is one where the reviewer just DESCRIBES what the music is like, not necessarily whether it gets raved about or panned. If the reviewer includes a lot of descriptive language about the music, quotes lyrics or inerviews with the band, etc. and it sounds like something I would like, I might check it out. Also, there have been certain critics over the years whose opinions I came to trust or mistrust fairly consistently. But yeah, I'd rather listen to an MP3 first. I only use the review as a way to be informed of a new band or record, mainly. And no, I would NEVER change my opinion of something I'd already heard based on a review! LOL... although there was one case where I did become convinced to like somebody based on years of consistently good reviews both from critics and from musician peers whose opinions I respect: Elvis Costello. I gotta say that when he first hit the scene, I didn't like him. Maybe it was his personality that turned me off more than anything, but I just thought he was too hip and clever for my taste and I got very weary of seeing critics fawn all over him all the time (and who was it that said "The critics all love Elvis Costello because they all LOOK like Elvis Costello!" I agreed with that totally!) However, over the years I kept hearing nothing but "he's a brilliant songwriter" and such from just about everyone I knew, including a lot of people not normally given to snobbery. And eventually, I did become a fan. I don't think the critics alone were responsible for that though - if I hadn't also heard the raves from other people I respect I still might not have given him much more of a chance. --Lee

[whosmatt]

i check reviews of music i like for comparisions to other music i may have never heard of... for example the CMJ "RIYL" listing. i bought the new sparklehorse CD because i'm an eels fan and the cmj review of the eels says riyl sparklehorse. and what do you know? they were right. so i guess the answer is yes. matt

[Dwarf]

Hmm, interesting question. I've never stopped liking something because a critic panned it. But I have been made curious about stuff based on good reviews. This is why I love MP3s - if I read a review of an album or read an interview with the artist I might pick up an MP3 just to check 'em out. Back in the days before MP3s (Yeah, I'm THAT old :) ) I remember reading great reviews about Richard Thompson. Years would go by and still I would see nothing but good reviews for this guy, so I went out and bought an album just to see what all the fuss was about. I love him - he's great. Now, if the fuss had been on the level of what happened with Michael Jackson's "Thriller" I would never have bothered, but it was a long smouldering fire that I eventually had to pay attention to. So yeah, in this case the repeated good press made me curious -- Rob [ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Dwarf ]

[rold]

Yes AND no. If I'm bored and need new music to listen to, I'll pick up some local weeklies, check out the reviews, download an mp3 to see if it's worth it and if it is, pick up the CD. If a friend tells me some new material is "da bomb" or "da shit" or whatever, and the reviews say it blows, same thing - grab an mp3, if it's good, pick up the CD, if not, I don't. I think it's important to take the source of the reviews into consideration as well.. I wrote reviews for a fanzine a few years ago and the 'zines policy was never to write a bad review, but instead review a different artist. The publisher's opinion was "what's the point in writing a bad review?"

[-]

Yes, I read music reviews, and yes, I think sometimes they influence what I like. I don't mean a review will talk me into believing a certain album is terrific when it's really the emperor's new clothes... What I mean is, I like having my views about music challenged. I may not agree with a reviewer's conclusion about an album, but by disagreeing, I'll either be strengthening my belief in a certain thing, or that belief will eventually be exposed to me for the silly idea it was all along.

[Charlie-brm]

If you jump every time you see a good review what does it matter if you don't know the critic's track record? Hollywood will print the guy from the Dogfart Gazette if he raves about the movie. The only way to use critics (other than as bicycle stands) is to stick with a few and test their likes and dislikes. I haven't found one yet that could be objective and say "if you like that, you will probably like this". I don't care what they like and that's the only way most of them can express themselves. Once you know their prejudices you can figure out a pattern. eg. If Ebert likes it, I will think it sucks. eg. a Toronto music critic was downgrading Diane Krall compared to some new and younger female talent he found at a jazz club. I eagerly investigated and decided this guy is simply a boob man and got his priorities crossed. And don't bother correcting them when they get the facts wrong, they are on to the next assignment.

[Steve LeBlanc]

I never read critics unless I'm bored out of my mind and already finished with the rest of the paper. So no, critics have never effected what music I like or listen to. People I respect do influence what I like though...if a musician I really like tells me to check an artist out, I always do and I listen with a more open mind than if I had just stumbled across it.

[soapbox]

[quote][i]Originally posted by popmusic:[/i] Do you read critics' reviews of music -- either from a print magazine or from the web?[/quote] No.

[gtrmac]

I read with interest the reviews of certain writers who have often pointed me towards music which I would have otherwise never listened to. A case in point would be the time I read a review of a Jamaican singer who was at the time completely unknown to the white American audience. I went to the concert which was recommended and me and the friend who went with me were completely blown away by the show. We were the only white people that we noticed in the audience which was a bit intimidating for a while until this fellow passed us a big joint rolled in brown leaf. The artist was Bob Marley and of course I became a devoted fan of his music. At the time his albums were only available in a record shop which specialised in Caribean music. A Jamaican guy I worked with took me there after told him about my epiphany. Jahn Rockwell may have been the reviewer since I remember that the article appeared in The New York Times. I have certainly been dissapointed after purchasing something which was raved about by a writer but I will often become interested in music based on a review and at least ask among friends and see if anyone had it and if it is worthwhile. I would never change my mind about something I had an opinion on based on a reviewer's opinion though. I'm not that easily swayed. I have always had strong opinions about music and besides I'm a stubborn S.O.B. :p

[dansouth]

Oops, wrong button! [ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: dansouth@yahoo.com ]

[Chip McDonald]

Critics in general are total pretentious idiots who think that while they're not musicians, they somehow have a special insight. I never read what they say - what's the point? Right now there's maybe, MAYBE 5 or so people on the planet who would have a 50/50 shot at guessing if I would like something or not; how would a critic help me? Particularly if I don't know what the critic likes in the first place. Most of the time they dribble information out that's totally ambiguous and uninformative, the rest of the time they rail about how the artist they're reviewing "hasn't lived up to" some expectation. It's ALWAYS that they're not living up to some expectation for some reason. Hate them, WHAT is the point? WHO reads them? I hate that they take up space in magazines I read - PARTICULARLY [i]non-music oriented[/i] magazines. What do I care what some guy thinks about a cd in a BIKE magazine? Or in a car magazine? Or better yet, a TECHNOLOGY magazine? Insane.

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] Most of the time they dribble information out that's totally ambiguous and uninformative, the rest of the time they rail about how the artist they're reviewing "hasn't lived up to" some expectation. It's ALWAYS that they're not living up to some expectation for some reason.[/b][/quote] OH yeah, that really gets me too! When I lived in L.A. I always used to make fun of Robert Hilburn, the head music critic for the L.A. Times. He's a very good writer, but his reviews always baffled me. He had his pet artists and everything they did was great, and everybody else was shit, for one thing. But what really killed me was that when the Stones' "Exile On Main Street" was first released, he totally panned it. BUT within a year or two he was taking every album that came out (and not only by the Stones, but by pretty much anybody) and comparing it to "Exile". I swear he had a macro in his word processor where if an album came out that he liked, he would say that it had "the shadowy late-night compulsion of the Rolling Stones' 'Exile On Main Street'." I don't know how many times I saw that phrase in a review of his over the years. And every subsequent Stones album that came out was a piece of shit because it wasn't "Exile". Periodically, someone (myself included) would write him a letter and remind him that he had panned "Exile" when it was released, but it didn't matter... LOL... that just used to crack me up. --Lee

[dansouth]

I read a lot of reviews when I was a teen (in the 70's). Down Beat had really cool reviews, very informative and fun to read. It was mostly jazz oriented, but they'd cover Bowie, Zappa, EWF, and other notable non-jazz releases from time to time. I've never cared for rock reviews. I've never seen eye to eye with any of the bozos that write them. I've probably read fewer than two dozen reviews in the last twenty years. I gave up in the late 70's when the only people who got good reviews were bands like The Roches, Gary Numan, and Television. This was about the same time that Saturday Night Live's musical guest list went the punk route. Most reviewers are full of shit, and I mean that in the most disparaging way, and both literally and figuratively. What kind of pathetic asshole makes a career out of bashing other people's music, films, art, plays, etc? [b]If you're so goddamned smart, make your own goddamn record, asshole![/b] Those who can, do; those who can't, review. A review is a piece of valueless, vapid entertainment, just like a horoscope (and about as valid). It's there to help move magazines and newspapers off of the shelves. A successful reviewer has to create a compelling review. Since most of them are less intelligent than a crack sniffing orangutan, their idea of a compelling review is either (a) to barbecue the film/record/restaurant mercilessly, or (b) to talk up the BIG HITS that everyone is going to buy/see/try, anyway. - Ever notice how there are some film critics who seem to like every single release? How is that possible? Don't get me wrong, there ARE some decent reviewers. There just aren't very many of them, and NONE of them work in the rock genre. [ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: dansouth@yahoo.com ]

[Jedi]

I'd have to agree with Dan. Reviewers are full of shit. The biggest thing is that before a critic is a critic, a critic is a writer. As a writer the person's main objective is to write something that sounds slick, convincing, shows a command of the language, and whatever bullshit you want to put in between. The music is put on the back burner. It's not top priority, sounding intelligent, provocative, whatever is the priority. I don't know how many times I've read a review and thought that the guy was just trying to sound cool. I'm not against criticism, but most of these writers just want some attention. Another thing about criticism is that it's too easy. In fact, it's probably one of the easiest things in the world, besides passing gas. The time, the effort, pain, passion that a songwriter/producer/player goes through to give life to something so that another person sitting on their hands can say yay or nay. Too easy too fucking easy. It brings me back to one of my favorite quotes "critics-murderers" For the record they haven't influenced me on what is good art. My judgement is based on what captures my heart. A critic has never done that. Jedi ps-As far as constructive criticism goes they're just like compliments. You have to use the same filter. namaste

[Magpel]

Yes, I can be influenced by critics, though I don't read many anymore: 1. As some have noted before, descriptions and comaprisons can arouse my interest in an artist. On two occasions, I recognized bands on the radio simply from having read so many reviews: Pavement and Elliot Smith. I ended up becoming a big Pavement fan. Elliot my jury is still out on. And... 2. Yes, there have been ocassions when really incisive and insightful reviews have made me quetion my attachment to certain records. The reviews have to be *really, really* good for this to happen, i.e., they make an observation or a critique that is so dead on that you recognize it as something you've felt, but perhaps denied. The defensive response is to say, "critics are full of shit." Then, sometimes months or years later, it'll occur to me that my opinion has fallen in line with that full of shit critic's. Once the defensive reaction passed. I think some critics are really astute listeners with a tremendous range of reference, and some are great writers too. Let's please distinguish your typical Detail or Enetertainment 20-something specious punk reviewer from the likes of a Greil Marcus or Robert Christgau.

[spokenward]

Critics can serve as a link to meaningful history. They can point people in interesting directions. They can document a scene and give artists a context. They can stir up enough interest in a community to get a few more artists heard and seen. One of the fundamental problems with the contemporary music business is that it has become convinced that it is about fashion and a narrowly-defined relevance to "what's happening now" (and verifiable by a quarter-hour of MTV). The industry is healthier when it acknowledges its history and celebrates it. The motion picture business is smarter about this. What have I learned from critics: they compelled me to listen to New Orleans music. My life is better for this. There are a lot of "critic's favorites" that actually do linger in memeory - Gram Parsons, Little Feat, Marvin Gaye, Curtis Mayfield, Lou Reed. I can thank them for shining a little brighter light on these.

[strat0124]

Last night on the way home from work, NPR reveiwed Jay Farrar's solo album. They basically panned it, but the cuts I've heard on Rollie Radio were pretty fab. I guess they all expect Uncle Tupelo everytime one of these guys puts something out. That ought to answer most of the questions about critiques......its an OPINION. Grains of salt?

[strat0124]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] And every subsequent Stones album that came out was a piece of shit because it wasn't "Exile". --Lee[/b][/quote] I like Exile, but to me Sticky Fingers is THE Rolling Stones album......but again.....my opinion. : )

[lovesinger]

Almost never. No reviewer has my ears nor my tastes, and I TRULY feel that while they may have listened to tens of thousands more songs than I, none of the present ones have my exposure to a variety of genres and styles within genres for many decades. Something I feel more than know when I do read the occasional review (and usually accidentally when it's near a book review on the same page) is that many pop reviewers seem to have a jaded, curmudgeonly-spirited outlook from an overdose of the music they used to enjoy. I think if most will write, perform and mix a project of they may refresh that once-had appreciation of the "wow" of it all. The only influence occasionally effected is when a review reveals some special obstacle overcame in recording the song. Then I like it (appreciate it) a bit more.